Harry Greb fighting in the Stanley Ketchel era

Ketchel's era was a brute of a middleweight division, it think it was one of the toughest around 1907/08 when we plonk a peaking Greb down. He would have to box:

Jack Sullivan. Jack is a super-tough defensive stylist who out-boxed Ketchel pretty thoroughly before being broken down as a twenty-five round fight reached its conclusion. He's an intriguing fight for Greb because he's a bigger and probably even tougher version of Mike Gibbons, not quite so brilliant defensively, but along similar sort of lines with the heavyweight experience.

Hugo Kelly. Another tough customer, bit of an era technician, not spectacular but correct, that kind of vibe, had no problem toughing it out with Papke early in their rivalry, or finding Jack Sullivan when they met.

Billy Papke. At his best he would probably be the most savage ******* that even Harry Greb had ever met, violent in the extreme, exceptionally durable with a great chin, creditted in many corners as being Ketchel's technical superior but perhaps without the tactical flash that Ketchel was able to show to get him over the hill in his toughest bouts and rivalries.

Stanley Ketchel. The big problem for Greb, I suppose, and he's not getting out of this middleweight cauldron without meeting him at least twice. Huge workrate, impossible to discourage, literally at this weight, perpetual forward motion, a huge body-attack and a total indifference to head-hunting...point being, whilst he doesn't have the short punching ability of Tunney or Loughran in consistency, he does have a naturalistic approach to the attack said to be key to beating Greb. His combination of engine, durability, ferocity and style means he's likely to hit Greb to the body as much as anyone in a twenty-five round fight - it depends, i think, upon how badly Greb beats Ketchel in the first ten/fifteen and how early Ketchel can start to catch up to him. Ketchel may be the most deadly puncher Greb would ever have fought and he held his power late.


A fascinating question, could Greb come through this lot quickly and unscathed? If he can wade through these quickly and definitively, he can, by virtue of his skin colour, get to a heavyweight title shot whilst Tommy Burns is in control of the title. So question one, can he do well enough against this field (and lesser fighters like Joe Thomas and Mike Sullivan) to usurp Jack Johnson and get to the heavyweight title whilst Burns has it? If so, how does he do against Burns?

Is it possible he'd be stopped in his tracks by Ketchel? Is it possible that Ketchel was too good for Greb, or that his style advantage made it appear so?

Or is it the case that Greb gets through, but is held up having to rematch Papke or Ketchel or one of the others having lost/been run too close to get the pass and that he'd have to fight Jack Johnson for the title? If so, how do you see that going?

 

Da ****?

I don't think there is any division anywhere that remains impressive upon removing the three best fighters from that division. Heavyweights in 1970s without Frazier, Ali and Foreman, only interesting. Lightweights in 1899 without Gans, Erne and Lavigne, nothing to write home about. Remove Ruben Olivares, Chucho Castillo and Rafael Herrera from the 1970 bantamweight division....you get the point.

 

That wouldn't be a matter of luck though.

 

Not really McVey. You've written a list of fighters for a series of eras which would all be considerably weaker if you took the best three fighters out of them. Look:

Stanley Ketchel
Sam Langford
Joe Thomas
Billy Papke
Jack Sullivan
Mike Sullivan
Jim Barry
Sailor Burke
Hugo Kelly
Philadelphia Jack O'Brien
Frank Klaus
Jack Blackburn
Young Peter Jackson

And these are only the guys that were fighting in the middleweight division two year period i've outlined, not the three or four year period you've allowed yourself for all the eras you've listed.


Still, this era, just like that one, is far pretty much destroyed as one of the toughest ever if you remove three best fighters.

Just like every single one you listed.

 

No. Read the opening post.

:blood
You list Rosenbloom as a significant middleweight for 1924-1926 despite the fact that he appears to have weighed in below 160 just a handful of times, including for a six round win over the legendary George Courtney, a ten round draw with Tommy West a win over someone called Frank Sweeney and a four round loss to Red Ulhan, perhaps? But you want to question my inclusion of O'Brien and Sullivan?

Sullivan met Stanley Ketchel at middleweight for his world heavyweight claim. This, alone, makes him as relevant middleweight than most of the men you mention. The fact that he was fighting at heavyweight after beating Tommy Burns speaks for his quality and possible opposition to Greb, not against it. He made the weight comfortably, and boxed brilliantly.

O'Brien met a number of men on my list, including Ketchel who he met in 1909, weighing 160lbs. You're inlcluding a root-green Rosenbloom, but you want to exclude O'Brien, who had victories over some of the best middles in history?

Then how was he able to fight for the 158lb title twice that year?

What, he has to do more? You're listing Durando who went something like 12-10-2 in that period for a 50% win ratio, but you're going to exclude Joe Thomas?

Thomas beat Klaus, Melody, boxed a draw with ATG Ketchel, is not one of the best men of the era, but was regarded as the coming man when he ran into Ketchel. It was seen as a surprising and superb win at the time.

What do you think the significance of that is?


I don't really understand where you are coming from with this. It was very obviously a very tough hw era, and the quill was very obviously absolutely superb.